Posts by Brandon Allen3

Yeah, okay: since there’s absolutely nothing in the current forum rules regarding a deadline for appeals, I’m asking administration for this:

Tyler Cruz32 said:Brandon Allen3 wants to go on a rampage alongside Angela regarding homosexuality, but since he was sanctioned with a warning, he’s acting as if the issue with his previous statement simply doesn't exist.

Furthermore, within our official thread—even after I provided a detailed explanation to a fellow user as to why his comment was offensive (which I assume he understands)—he continues to violate the rules by trolling. He labels the organization on behalf of families as "on behalf of clerofascists" and calls those who organized the referendum idiots, all while using large, red lettering. When I delete such outbursts, he avoids a sanction because apparently, I am just being homophobic or unintelligent, I guess. It clearly isn't enough for him, as he has now opened this new thread to insult and disparage me, yet he still pretends to be oblivious to why he received a warning in the first place.

I have every right to lock a thread when it becomes necessary, and since it is evident that a civil conversation cannot occur in that thread without a constant police presence, I found exactly that when I went online yesterday. Meanwhile, Brandon Allen3 failed to report a SINGLE post for rule violations—demonstrating how little he actually cares about a decent debate—and instead merely piggybacked off someone else's trolling to deliver his controversial remark.

You may attempt to insult me as much as you wish; everyone is well aware of my commitment to equality and democracy. However, the fact that you are accusing me without cause, simply because you are unhappy with the scheduled referendum and want to push whatever nonsense comes to mind, says everything about your conduct.

I have nothing further to add on this matter.
You are free to find another forum where people will allow you to spout nonsense about intelligence or call organizations "on behalf of clerofascists."

Regards.

Finally, for Dorian and Nica, here is a link that perfectly illustrates the full extent of his rhetoric, his insinuations, and the nonsense he attempts to push:

And quite frankly, the existence of certain rude atheists who feel the need to insult, disparage, and lash out rather than engaging in a polite discussion on the topic at hand is not my concern. If anyone feels slighted because they aren't permitted to behave this way, they are more than welcome to start a blog to showcase their rhetorical "brilliance."

the administration is sanctioning Tyler Cruz32.
I have no idea where the moderator gets the right to label me an atheist. It was deeply offensive to my religious beliefs and caused significant spiritual distress.

That's it.

P.S. No, I'm not trolling. This is a legitimate grievance. Because if I can get hit with a massive amount of points just for calling certain people clerical-fascist sheep, then I guess the moderator should be held to the same standard for indirectly grouping me in with atheists...

Which part of "Tyler Cruz32 can just sit this one out" was too complicated for you?

Since we're talking though:
- I’d much rather you just shut me down than delete my posts. Thanks.
- You can take that whole speech about being dedicated to democracy and equality and shove it. You're deleting one guy's posts and locking his threads without a single word of explanation, all because someone—and I don't see any other reason—handed you the disciplinary cards. Stop handing them out like you're at a union rally, me in the Government, and this is May Day... if you actually know how to justify why you're doing it.
- Yeah, I'm frustrated about that recent referendum. My apologies to you and your buddies for undermining democracy and equality like that. And no, I'm not sorry for calling people clerofascists when they hang out with the clergy and push fascism. What else am I supposed to call them?

P.S. And yeah, that referendum was pure clerofascism. The group fighting for it was just a bunch of clerofascists. In the country I live in, 80% of people voted NO because they couldn't care less who's sleeping with whom, unlike those mindless, clerofascist American sheep.
And that isn't an insult, it's just a fact. Insults are directed at specific people, not entire groups.

Back in the day, the former ZgSash admin actually went on record saying that believers in Religion get special treatment, and that nobody should have an issue with it. It just sailed right through without anyone noticing... let alone any consequences. Great. Just great... 🙄

Now Tyler Cruz32 is back at it, following in the footsteps of those medieval villains... probably looking for role models there. Just constant crusades over anything that could even remotely be linked to homosexuality.
First, they locked my thread about that whole "cursed man" situation just because one of the participants—and I wasn't even the one who brought it up first—decided to pivot to homosexuality. They wiped the posts with that usual "stay on topic" warning... even though we were staying on track. Honestly, the lady is clearly homophobic to her core, and apparently, anything starting with certain topics just rubs her the wrong way... man...Probably thinks so too... Homo sapiens... just a bunch of hairless primates wandering around trying to make sense of it all. Sometimes you wonder if we're actually getting anywhere or just spinning our wheels... turns out we're mostly just reacting to things. Typical. Labeling someone a wise queer... 👍Whatever, it doesn't matter. I asked Nico to just delete the thread because I couldn't be bothered to tilt at windmills...

No, Tyler Cruz32 is at it again. She just locked the thread on homosexuality—a massive discussion with nearly 8,000 posts—without any warning whatsoever. Nothing. Then I get a DM telling me I’ve been slapped with 45 points for "insulting behavior," based on this one sentence...

Nonsense like who’s pushing what or where they can shove it is only something those ultra-Catholic, sanctimonious sheep would care about... not someone with an actual brain.

I'm still waiting for more info... turns out I need the actual content to work with. Send over the text you want me to flip. Once you do, I'll get to it. No fluff, just the rewrite. Ready when you are... book of complaints I asked the moderator over on the Religion forum exactly where and who I was supposedly offending, but she keeps dodging the question. She just gives me the same vague answers from one post to the next without actually pointing out what’s wrong. I’m not playing dumb here. That whole topic—the book of complaints—isn't meant for verbal sparring...

There it is.
I’m asking the admins, supermods, Anderlon, and everyone else to just explain something to me. What exactly am I doing wrong here? Who am I supposed to be offending? And does this whole penalty point system actually mean anything... Tyler Cruz32, you can sit this one out. I really don't feel like reading another lecture from you about how I'm just playing dumb and that everything is perfectly fine.

Thanks in advance. 🙂

You know, there’s this common stereotype here about how lawyers act, but honestly, most of it just comes down to people blaming them for their own lack of foresight and the mess they made themselves.
so—who’s really at fault here?

just to be clear: I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm genuinely curious why you'd go sign something that clearly works against your own interests.
sure, you were young, but just like a four-year-old knows what happens when they chuck a rock through a window, a twenty-year-old should realize that signing away half your property for nothing isn't going to pay off.

the only thing his behavior might actually do is get you out of those child support obligations.

crimsonpanther16 said:I'm just wondering if this is how things usually play out... is the other side actually in the right here? Legally, I get it—the kid signed away their rights, so everything looks fine on paper. But I have to ask: is it really normal for someone to be this manipulative? How much can you push someone to grab property that rightfully belongs to their own child? Just curious what you guys think.

Was that a rhetorical question?
No, it’s definitely not normal to try and strip away half an apartment that legally belongs to someone else. It gets even uglier when you manipulate your own kid who's barely out of high school... and honestly, it's tragic to block that same kid from even stepping foot in the place.

<offtopic>whatever, parents like this will always be more controlling than any activist group😁</offtopic>

Chloe Baker88 said:

Tooth. I can't even begin to process this. What are we actually doing here? Seriously?
Here’s a little something to help you chill out after two days of nonstop brain strain. 😁

I remember back when I was running things as a presiding judge, one of my colleagues came to me with this absolute mess of a rape case. Some guy in his sixties decided he wanted to assault a woman around the same age out in some field. It dragged on for an hour, but he couldn't actually finish the job because—get this—he couldn't get an erection. My colleague tells me he’s thinking about charging it as just "attempted assault." Are you kidding me? I asked him, "Is that really an attempted assault?" Because if we go that route, it implies nobody else under those same conditions could pull it off, and honestly, I doubt that's true! He just shrugs it off like, "Look, he's old, and it was freezing out there. You have no idea what a winter night does to a guy..." Whatever. I just told him, "Fine, you clearly know more about biology than I do, so what am I supposed to say?"

So he tried to rule it an improper attempt, right? And then—surprise, surprise—the Supreme Court overturned him on appeal and sent it right back. After that, he comes crawling back to me like, "Hey, I'm gonna rule it an improper attempt again, because that's exactly what it is. Let them overturn me again!" Honestly, I just told him, fine, go ahead. At least you’ll get the case off your plate once they hand it over to another panel. Anyway, some time passed and I'd basically forgotten all about him. Then, out of nowhere, here he comes again.

Look, they’re telling me I didn't even make a valid attempt. Fine, whatever. But let’s be real—I see exactly what’s going on here. Everyone over at the Supreme Court is older than me... if they actually admitted this was an improper attempt, they'd have to admit that nobody could ever win under these ridiculous conditions! So fine, if they need to tell themselves that just to sleep better at night, let them. I know the truth, and deep down, they know it too. It was an improper attempt, plain and simple.

Just some copy-paste from the depths of the internet.

What's this even supposed to be? 🤣😂

I’ve been digging through this "new" draft law. Honestly? It just shifts the whole mess onto the concept of gross negligence. Think about it: if some guy is physically incapable of performing, isn't attempting a rape basically just gross negligence at that point? Assuming we're talking about the "classic" way of doing things, anyway. Or does the law now consider just using force and pinning someone down enough to count?

Man, just think about all those cases handled under the old laws. Everything was so much simpler back then... ugh. personal bias

it’s not stupid because attempted rape begins the second the force is applied.

remember how people used to be convicted under those old laws... things were much simpler back then... ah, old-school policing

that judge disgraced himself and the whole American justice system. pretty sure he was "retired" recently😁

Just jumping in here (might help some of you distinguish between an actual attempt and something just ridiculous): under the new penal code, they’ve redefined "improper attempt" to mean nothing more than gross negligence. Basically, it covers doing something completely mindless, like trying to poison someone with chamomile tea or attempting to shoot someone from 1.2 milesblocks away
. It wasn't like this before; for instance, theft used to be labeled an improper attempt if, say, you tried to steal a car that had an anti-theft steering lock or an empty gas tank.

All in all, a positive move *drot13* 😁

Can I get into Bryan?

No. 🙄

Edit: approved change in Brandon Allen3

analogstag29 said:this is easily the safest, most reliable, and definitely the absolute slowest internet forum to ever exist... past, present, or future. Consider this my formal message, complaint, and observation within the "messages, complaints, and observations" section of the world's most sluggish online community.

😂 one of the better posts on here 🤣